In OPR, Apartment complex signs were a No, as per the Guide.
In Wayfarer there is no explicit declaration about them, and I've been seeing quite a few come online in the last week.
@NianticCasey @NianticKN @NianticMP
I’d strongly imagine it’s still a no... think about what else has changed in relation to the reviewing process this last week....
Until something new is provided, it is no unless there is something artistically, historically or culturally important about it.
Candidate: Apartment/Development Sign
REJECT unless they are historic or have some significance.
But exactly what criteria would these signs have fit under anyways?
In a new user logic they could be landmarks/monuments. Because we lost the CAG I think a lot more things are being left to interpretation but old reviewers are still paying attention to now unwritten guides
Community Gathering Place, Landmark, "I want it". But yes, that's the old guide which no longer exists.
Much of the new reviewers are working off the logic "If there's not a reason it's not a portal, it's a portal" and calling it a 'different philosophy'. I won't repeat what I call it, here.
I bet you're missing my pergolas right about now
Community gather places is a laugh. Signs as landmarks that fits into "adventurous tourist attractions" is a serious stretch of the criteria. "I want it", I don't care.
The want-more-stops in me wishes yes, but they're a definite reject unless there's something fantastically artistic about them to qualify as an art piece.
Still hoping for a specific statement from @NianticCasey or the Wayfarer appeals team. Seeing more of them come online too.
Nothing has changed with the criteria, there are just masses of new reviewers that are choosing to ignore it in the quest for never ending pokeballs.
Given that these new reviewers are not reading, and CANNOT read the CAG, old criteria documents are not actionable.
So yes, the criteria has changed, for a new reviewer.
The criteria hasn’t changed. Yes that particular clarification hasn’t been copied over but what suggests to you they will have suddenly changed that clarification. I fail to see what criteria they meet, the clarification just confirmed the obvious. Anyway, hope you get the answer you are looking for from Niantic...
Just because someone cant read the old AMA's or guides does not mean the criteria has changed.
Is it a failing by Niantics to not inform new reivews, yes. It doesn't mean that all the old criteria was chucked out or no longer valid.
I know you "fail to see". Because that's the point you're ignoring.
There is no statement anywhere that excludes Apartment signs, like there used to be. That clarification was required in the past, because the criteria didn't exclude Apartment signs, and there was enough of an argument by some people to include them. Niantic made a ruling, and now has promptly erased all of those rulings, in such a way that new reviewers are not bound by them because they could never read them.
How is someone meant to follow a rule that doesn't exist, is never stated, and is only known to existing reviewers from an older system?
Essentially, @NianticCasey, we need a new Candidate Action Guide, or all the rulings in the old one become irrelevant.
Yes. It does. It literally does.
The body of rules for reviewing portals does not contain a statement excluding apartment signs.
How do you expect people to know if it's never stated anywhere?
it would be impossible to have clarifications on literally every possible scenario. You seek a clarification on this scenario, Niantic have made one in the past. You still haven’t stated why you think a further clarification would be any different?
I agree it would be helpful to include the CAG for the new reviewers but that doesn’t mean something Niantic have ruled on before has suddenly changed.
Uh... hello... that's precisely what the Candidate Action Guide was. An explicit listing of questionable cases, and their specific response. Did it cover everything? No. Did it cover the 90% of cases, probably. We don't have it, and because new reviewers can't see it, they are not bound by it's guidelines, and therefore, the criteria has changed.
You still haven’t stated why you think a further clarification would be any different?
It's not a further clarification. There is no clarification any more. It has been removed. I'm asking for it to be replaced. You've not only proven my point, but highlighted that there are a lot more than just Apartment Signs that need clarification.
We do need a new CAG, or the criteria has changed.
You can not have a guide that clarifies every single thing, that just is not practical.
Flipping your argument that its not in the guide on its head, what criteria does it meet ?
Apartment complex signs are generic non visually interesting and some are mass produced, so what actual criteria do they meet in the submission criteria ?
It doesn't need to be eplicitly stated that these signs don't meet the criteria. The only reason they are an issue is because people are ignoring the criteria altogether to accept these signs in order to justify having another portal/stop/gym/inn/fortress in their area.
Let’s just agree that a CAG would be helpful for new reviewers. I’m not going to agree that criteria has changed. Anyway I won’t converse with you any further on this matter, I’ll let you wait for Niantic to confirm that their position on Apartment Signs hasn’t changed. Hopefully you can get them to add the obvious to Wayfarer so we won’t see anymore rubbish approved.
You say this. And yet we had one previously. You don't need to clarify every single thing. Your argument is a black and white fallacy, because we had a Candidate Action Guide that clarified the most common ones.
Quite a few apartment complex signs are interesting, and none of them are 'mass produced' since they're all different. An apartment sign where I used to live, featured a lighthouse and a scene which was basically artwork, but excluded by the CAG. They were given an explicit ruling because many of them actually would otherwise qualify.
You do realise you just contradicted yourself ?
You said my statement about it not being practical to have a guide which covers everything, was a lie. Yet you then say you had a guide which covered common questions. So thats a guide that doesnt cover eveything but only common questions. So which is it you believe in ?
Also you are mistaken in saying that all apartment complex sign were excluded, the orginal guide suggested a 1* rating unless historic or has some significance.
You said my statement about it not being practical to have a guide which covers everything, was a lie.
No. I said it was a fallacy. Please don't attempt make another fallacy by distorting my statement.
Your argument was invalid because we do not need to cover every single case, to have a Candidate Action Guide. You're setting an unreasonable bar in order to 'claim' that it's impossible. I never said it needs to cover every single case, and you distorted my claim in order to set up a black and white fallacy.
The Candidate Action Guide is needed, for the same reason it was needed before. And without it, the criteria for reviewing portals does not include those clarifications.
And again you're distorting my statement. I said that there are apartment complex signs that are artwork, but were excluded. They aren't historic, and they aren't culturally significant, but they are interesting artwork. However, the CAG excluded them.
They said in the AMA or in a thread somewhere that the CAG was replaced by the Potentially Confusing Nominations section. Which is woefully inadequate but that's what they believe is enough to guide a worldwide launch of submissions and reviewers.
And thus the purpose of this post is to ask for further clarification on a specific point, because that list is inadequate.
Please keep the conversation civil here. Stepping in to answer this specific question: apartment or living complex signs are NOT eligible wayspots unless they have some sort of historical or cultural significance and are easily accessible by pedestrians (i.e. not in the middle of the road).
Hope that helps!
Right and thankfully they answered but it's not going to help all the people not here unfortunately and they're the ones submitting it